This is a technical amendment correcting the omission of the word "the" in line 36. The amendment will not affect the overall provision of the section.
Harbours Bill, 1995: Committee Stage (Resumed).
Sections 18 to 28, inclusive, agreed to.
SECTION 29.
Government amendment No. 7:
In page 27, subsection (1) (a), line 36, after "on" to insert "the".
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 27, subsection (1), line 40, after "a" to insert "suitably qualified".
This amendment seeks to ensure that the person to be appointed to carry out an examination should be suitably qualified.
I am happy to accept that amendment.
I compliment the Minister on accepting the amendment which improves the Bill and I congratulate Senator Fitzgerald for introducing it.
Amendment agreed to.
I move amendment No. 9:
In page 27, subsection (1), line 43, after "examination" to add "within a period of three months".
Would the Minister consider imposing a time limit? It might make the provision stronger if he provided for a time limit such as the period of three months suggested in my amendment. The Minister could suggest another time limit. The provision as it stands is open ended.
I am happy to accept Senator Fitzgerald's suggestion that there should be a time limit. However, I ask him to allow me some time between now and Report Stage to reflect on whether it should be three months or longer. I would also like to give the parliamentary draftsman an opportunity to look at the language in the amendment. I ask the Senator to withdraw his amendment and I will include the principle of it in an amendment on Report Stage.
I have no problem with that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 29, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 30.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 28, between lines 25 and 26, to insert a new paragraph as follows:
"(e) when making any appointments under paragraph (a), (b), (c) or (d), the Minister shall consult with the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland and following such consultation may appoint a particular person to be a director to represent the business interest".
This matter was debated in the Dáil on Second and Committee Stages. I am seeking that the Minister allow the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland to put forward the name of a suitable member of its organisation to sit on the board. There is hardly a need to bring to the Minister's attention the work chambers of commerce are doing in cities and towns throughout the country. They have a huge input into trade, commerce and tourism. I have watered down the provision in the amendment. I am not telling the Minister that he must appoint a member of the chamber of commerce because he might turn it down flat. I am giving him leeway. Perhaps if he consulted with the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland that organisation might be able to propose somebody who might even have a dual role. Many people in business in a city or town could be considered for membership of the board but they might also be a member of the chamber of commerce. Thus, the two purposes might be looked after. I am asking that the chamber of commerce have some say in appointing a suitable person to the board.
In our case there is no chamber of commerce. I am a member of Foynes Harbour Board and there is no chamber of commerce in the area. There is an unofficial chamber of commerce in Rathkeale which is ten miles away and a chamber of commerce in Limerick city. I find it difficult to understand why a chamber of commerce in Limerick which has no contact or influence on Foynes should be consulted about who should be appointed to Foynes Port Company. There are other harbour boards in areas where there are no chambers of commerce, especially in the west. Why would such organisations which do not have contact with and often little knowledge about the activities of a port be consulted in the appointment of people to that board?
I support this proposal although I understand the point Senator Neville has made. However, the amendment does not refer to the local chamber of commerce; it asks that the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland be consulted. It is a mild and modest proposal. The Minister will probably say that no board would consider appointing members without taking local business interests into account. The point in the amendment is crucial. In the past ports have been bedevilled by restrictive practices, bad opening hours and excessive charges. There is a need to be more responsive to customers' requirements and needs. The motive behind the amendment of consulting the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland is one way of achieving this.
I am not a believer in fixed seats on boards but the Bill provides for fixed seats for local authorities and employees. If we are to have such seats for certain entrenched positions, we must ensure that the local customers and users are represented. I long assumed that customers consisted of importers and exporters using ports. It is only recently that my attention was drawn to the fact that the leisure industry is of crucial importance to the future of the tourism sector. In some cases sailing clubs and others are being treated as second class citizens by harbour authorities. I can understand this because I would have made the mistake in the past of saying to such persons that they are only out to enjoy themselves and that the real work involves bringing in ships and running ports. However, when we take tourism and jobs into account, the leisure industry, leisure craft and sailing clubs must be considered also.
Is there some way we can make sure that all those who use harbours at present will not be asked to vacate them in future? They are of real and not secondary value. Consultations with chambers of commerce would ensure that all interests, not just local ones represented by local authorities, are taken into account. Leisure and sailing interests, as well as businesses, use ports. I am sure the Minister would say that no board would be appointed without account being taken of these interests. I would love if he said this and took the spirit of the amendment into account, even if he has difficulty in accepting its wording.
I support the amendment. When the county enterprise partnership boards were being established, I moved an amendment to the relevant Bill to the effect that chambers of commerce should have right of representation on these boards. It did not seem sensible that business interests in the communities in which these boards operate should not have a direct right of representation. The same principle applies here. It is inconceivable that people who know most about the commerce of their localities should not be on these boards.
The amendment does not go as far as I would go. It proposes that, following consultation, certain action should be taken. This is a sensible approach. Section 30 (1) (a) of the Bill as initiated provides that employees of a port company who are more than 50 in number are entitled to two places on the board. This is a high level of representation for 50 people. The business community in any port consists of much more than 50 people, all of whom have at some stage some connection with the port and probably strong views on how it should be run commercially.
The most appropriate body to represent the business community is the local chamber of commerce. Several county enterprise partnership boards include people from chambers of commerce; regrettably, the Kildare board is not one of them. The secretaries of a large proportion of these boards are members of chambers of commerce. The same principle should apply to port companies and I commend it to the Minister.
I appreciate the constructive and helpful approach of Senator Fitzgerald. I am sure he is aware of the debate we had on this issue in the Dáil. I will respond positively to the amendment. With regard to Senator Quinn's contribution on the amendment, it is our strong intention that when boards are being appointed, business, professional and leisure interests will feature greatly in their memberships.
I accept the principle of the amendment. There is some fine tuning which needs to be done and I will do this before Report Stage. I need to see if this is the appropriate section which needs to be amended to provide what Senator Fitzgerald is proposing because this section deals with worker and local authority directors and it may be section 17 which needs to be amended. I need to consider the type of situation mentioned by Senator Neville, which is that there may not be a chamber of commerce in a port area and it may be necessary to consult not just the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland but also IBEC and other bodies. The parliamentary draftsman will have to consider what we want inserted.
I accept the principle of Senator Fitzgerald's proposal, which is that there should be a formal process of consultation with business interests and the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland, and I will introduce an appropriate amendment on Report Stage to provide for this.
I thank the Minister for being so open in his interpretation of the concerns expressed by all us on this aspect of the Bill and for saying he will consider consultations with the Chambers of Commerce of Ireland. Waterford and New Ross Chambers of Commerce expressed concern about this issue.
Today seems to be my lucky day. I thank the Minister for accepting this. I did not advocate the appointment of members of chambers of commerce because I felt consultations with them would achieve a better result. I thank the former Minister for the Marine, Senator Daly, for his help in drafting amendments. I accept the Minister's word that a suitable amendment will be introduced on Report Stage to satisfy everybody.
The Minister has a refreshing ability to take the thrust of amendments on board. He is to be congratulated for the way he dealt with this amendment and the matter of New Ross and Waterford. I suggest that he have a quiet word with the Minister for Education to advise her to adopt a similarly flexible approach when we debate the Bill on third level education.
I appreciate the Minister's rapid response.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 28, subsection (6), line 46, to delete "persons" and substitute "members of a local authority".
Over the years elected members of local authorities have been losing their power on many bodies. I am not blaming the Government, but legislation has slowly excluded county councillors. Section 30 (6) states that the "Minister shall appoint 3 persons, nominated in the prescribed manner". I am worried that the Minister or the county council could nominate an assistant manager or a planning officer. I want to ensure that the people appointed are elected members of county councils. Senator Cregan supported this on Second Stage. Those who are elected know what is happening and they have an input into legislation. They are suitable to be appointed to boards such as these which deal with issues in their local councils or corporations.
I support Senator Fitzgerald because I am worried that the word "persons" could mean officials from county councils or corporations and would not include members of a local authority. I was on the same local authority as the Minister at one stage and I am sure he knows how we feel about the erosion of our powers. If local authority members were appointed it would reinforce the role they play in local democracy by reflecting the needs in their areas. Perhaps the Minister could consider this amendment to ensure that three local authority members are appointed, not three "persons". As a member of a local authority, I would not like to be by-passed for an official who would not be answerable to the people. Local authority members are answerable to the people. We will do the job and ensure there is democracy on the boards.
I thank the Minister for his concern on this matter. On Second Stage we mentioned the watchdogs who will watch the operations of particular boards. There is a general impression that the less one sees of public representatives, including those on local councils and in the Oireachtas, the better. We saw over the past few months what can happen when public representatives do not act as watchdogs, particularly in semi-State bodies which sell property or land. The Minister knows the work which public representatives do. Public representatives from all parties are conscious of the fact that the public elected them. Other people are not conscious of that and they can make decisions which are not as open as those made by public representatives. I hope we can find a compromise.
I agree with the other speakers. The Bill states they will be nominated in the "prescribed manner" which means the local authority must nominate them. We must ensure that the level of power and involvement of local councillors is maintained and improved. A commission has been set up and views have been submitted. I hope that will enhance and improve the powers of local authority members.
I was a local authority member on a board for ten years but not in a commercial or personal capacity, although these are important. I was appointed as a public representative who was answerable to the people in my area. Councillors on boards are often demeaned by many people, but they do an excellent job. They represent the independent views of those who elect them and they are able to bring that to bear on the activities of a board. It is important to continue this practice. I understand from the Bill that it will always be a local authority member who is appointed. We must ensure that the contribution of and the potential to involve local authority members in the development of the new harbour boards are recognised.
I compliment Senator Fitzgerald on introducing this amendment. The word "persons" could mean someone other than elected members of local authorities. The Minister has recommended that the number of members on a board should be 12 or less. It is, therefore, not generous to confine the number of members of local authorities to three. I know more than three local authorities who would like to nominate members to a harbour authority.
I do not disagree with what the Senator is saying, but he should have tabled an amendment.
I support Senator Fitzgerald's amendment.
He supports me, as does everyone on this side of the House.
Elected members of local authorities must be appointed to these authorities. Perhaps I should have tabled an amendment, but I will have an opportunity to do so on Report Stage.
I compliment Senator Fitzgerald on his amendment. Senator Rory Kiely beat around the bush, but I want to speak specifically about Limerick Harbour Commissioners. Four local authorities surround the estuary — Kerry County Council, Clare County Council, Limerick County Council and Tipperary North Riding County Council. Will we appoint three members from each of these local authorities? That situation would to be totally unfair. Unless there is some bit of give, I will table an amendment on Report Stage looking for a harbour authority for the Kerry region on its own. There is nothing to laugh about with a couple of thousand acres of land under State control on the deepest part of the estuary. As there is now fragmentation on the river we might as well have another authority or two on it. I will definitely be looking for one for Kerry, you can be sure of it.
Both amendments which have been moved by Senator Fitzgerald on section 30 — one of which the Minister has already agreed to accept, and this one which I hope he will also accept — are improvements because they are specific. Senator Cregan and Senator Fitzgerald made a valid point that there is a propensity within Government Departments to downgrade the role of elected representatives. Senator Neville has made this point on several Bills. It is an extraordinary attitude to emanate from any public department. Senator Neville put his finger on the most germane point. The humblest town commissioner has something that other people do not, which is the democratic endorsement of the people of an area.
That is right.
If Senator Neville or any other colleague serves as a town commissioner or councillor and goes onto a harbour board they are answerable to the people. They are the only members of the harbour authorities who are democratically answerable. There is something fundamentally wrong and it is not just in this Bill. It runs through a whole series of legislative provisions we have had in recent years. A distressing anti-democratic attitude has been evident in drafting legislation.
As I said on Second Stage, it is vitally important that local authority members are on the harbour boards or their successor bodies because they provide a vital link between the hinterland and the harbour authority. I strongly support Senator Fitzgerald's amendment to delete the word "persons" and substitute "members of a local authority". On a small drafting point, I hope the Minister will check that when it says members of a local authority it means the elected representatives of the people and not the assistant county manager or county secretary.
Elected members, yes.
Senators on all sides of the House have put this point very well and the Minister should accept it. It is a small blow to re-establish democracy. I am not saying it has happened in this Administration, but over the years there has been a propensity to remove the elected representatives, which in my view is unhealthy. It is an extraordinary feature of Irish life that one could be a mass murderer — having served his or her term — and gaily become a board member of any State body, but if you are an elected representative of the people you are unacceptable. That is not right in a democracy.
I support the idea behind Senator Fitzgerald's amendment which says that members of local authorities should serve on this board. If the Minister is making changes to that section he should perhaps insert "at least three persons". That would get over the difficulty the Minister will face when he appoints three persons in Shannon because trying to find only three from four or five local authorities will be difficult. No matter who you pick you are not going to please everybody.
In this case the Minister would be wise to maintain what he has.
That is right.
Section 30 (6) states that:
The Minister shall appoint 3 persons, nominated in the prescribed manner by a prescribed local authority, to be each a director of a company.
If the local authority believes there is not somebody on the authority who is the expert in this area, it would be very wise for them to have the freedom to appoint somebody who is an expert, even if it is not one of the elected representatives.
I disagree.
If I understand this correctly, it would be unwise to accept this. The local authority could lose the freedom to appoint whom they wish.
May I address a very brief comment to the last observation made by Senator Quinn? From my experience on a variety of local authorities, health boards, town commissions, county councils and regional technical colleges, it is a fundamental error to use the word "persons" loosely. It is of critical importance and should be specific that it is the elected representatives. Senator Quinn will have to accept my word that the wiles of county managers and their staff are better known to the elected representatives in this House than they are, with all due respect, to my colleague, Senator Quinn.
Point noted.
Senator Quinn said that local authorities may have someone else in mind who would not be an elected member of a local authority. But the maximum number of members who can be appointed to these port authorities is 12. If it is recommended that the Minister appoints someone else who is interested he should have the power to do so. At least three elected members of local authorities should be appointed to the harbour boards. The Minister has a solution to satisfy Senator Quinn's concern in the matter.
Members will recall that when the review group considered the membership of the harbour companies it did not recommend that there should be representation for sectoral interests, including representation for local authorities. In that sense it was a significant departure from what had been the practise with regard to the composition of harbour commissioners.
In considering the Murphy report and in preparing this legislation, the Government decided there should be local authority representation on harbour company boards. The Government did so in order to confirm the important link between harbours and the local communities and the economies they serve. It was done to reaffirm the Government's commitment to local democracy and devolving to local government as much power and authority as possible.
In doing so it was intended that the representation from local authorities should be elected members. Senator Fitzgerald's amendment has drawn attention to the fact that the way in which it is expressed in the legislation leaves open the possibility that persons other than elected members of a local authority might be appointed. I am accepting the principle of Senator Fitzgerald's amendment. However, I need to give the parliamentary draftsman a bit more time because there is a bit of tidying up to be done as it is expressed in this amendment. It turns out that where you would have more than one local authority it is possible to interpret it that they would all have to be selected from the one authority. We can tidy it up before Report Stage but the principle is accepted.
I wish to refer to two other points which were thrown up in the course of the discussion. The first is Kerry. I am surprised that Senator Kerry is not aware that Kerry, in fact, does have a harbour authority. The Tralee and Fenit Harbour Commissioners is a very important harbour authority.
And Dingle.
The legislation, as Senator Fitzgerald said, establishes Dingle as a fishery harbour centre. County Kerry is doing very well in terms of the governance of its harbours.
I refer to the issue of where more than one local authority has an interest in making an appointment to the board of the respective harbour company. The case of the Shannon Estuary port company has been raised as four or possibly five local authorities have an interest in that harbour company. It should be pointed out that there will be two harbour companies in that area. I am aware of the organic relationship between Members of the Seanad and members of local authorities. I expect that Members would have views on how that should be resolved.
The legislation provides that the selection of local authorities to make appointments to the harbour companies will be a matter decided on by the Minister in consultation with the Minister for the Environment. Given Members considerable experience of the views and preferences of members of local authorities, I thought they might want to express an opinion on what local authorities should make nominations and the quantity for particular port authorities.
The Minister is like my colleague, Senator Rory Kiely, in that he is beating around the bush.
Senator Kiely would never beat around the bush.
The Minister said there were now two port authorities in the Shannon Estuary, but I believe there are four, including Kilrush, Cappagh, Foynes and Limerick Harbour. How will we handle that? My county manager told me that under this legislation county councils have nothing to do with ports and port authorities. I told my county manager that Fenit would be brought under the jurisdiction of Kerry County Council. If it was making a loss and if we only had one member on the board of the authority, who would make up the shortfall if the company ran into difficulties? This happened before in the case of Fenit.
On a point of information, there are only three ports on the Shannon Estuary as Cappagh is Kilrush.
I am reluctant to intrude on the delicacies of the relationship between Limerick and Kerry. The Minister must be congratulated on the way he has approached this legislation; it is a good example of how the House should work. Reasonable amendments have been taken on board, although there have been instances where this has not happened. I would be grateful if Senator Fitzgerald would have a word with me after the debate because I am in awe of his record in this regard. My record in having amendments accepted is lamentable and my most recent minor victory was many months ago during the National Heritage Council Bill. I would be grateful if Senator Fitzgerald would tell me how he does this because it would be of enormous use.
I compliment the Minister for taking amendments on board. He said there would be two port authorities on the Shannon Estuary. If Senator Dan Kiely read the legislation he would know that the purpose of the Bill is to establish authorities in 12 major ports. Only two port authorities in the Shannon Estuary are mentioned — Shannon and Foynes.
And Cappagh.
It was not mentioned. This Bill concerns only two ports in the Shannon Estuary. There will be 12 members on the authority, three of whom will be local authority members. The Minister said that as there are two local authorities in that area, the counties could agree on something. Foynes is only in the jurisdiction of Limerick County Council and I would like to know if membership of that board will extend beyond Limerick County Council.
I am delighted the Minister has accepted the spirit of my amendment. I have no problem leaving it to him to come up with the necessary wording on Report Stage. If two more of my amendments are accepted, I will do the lottery tonight.
Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
Question proposed: "That section 30 stand part of the Bill."
In many of the areas in which these port companies will operate there are well established industrial promotion agencies dealing with aspects of development that are port-related. Senator Dan Kiely mentioned the land bank in Ballylongford and the amount of land in the hands of the Industrial Development Authority. There has been a considerable amount of development in some ports which is related to the activities of the industrial promotion agencies.
During the consultation process which will take place when membership is established, I hope the Minister will take into account the views of bodies like the Shannon Free Airport Development Company, which has responsibility for tourism promotion and development as well as industry in the mid west region. The previous Shannon Estuary Port Bill provided for direct representation for the Shannon development company on the board, which comprised nine members plus four from local authorities. There will naturally be a considerable amount of discussion between the port company, the local authority and the development agencies. The views of the industrial promotion agencies, which are paramount if this exercise is to work successfully, should be closely scrutinised.
The Foras Forbartha report commissioned in 1983 identified 12 or 14 deep water areas along the Shannon Estuary for future development. Some were located in Clare and others in Limerick and Kerry. I intended to mention the future development of the Shannon Estuary on Second Stage. As was stated by the former Taoiseach, Deputy Reynolds, the Shannon Estuary could be developed into a second Rotterdam. How will the Minister develop the Shannon Estuary to its full potential if there is only one representative from Kerry on the board? There are thousands of acres of land under the control of the State which were bought for future development in Kerry, Clare and Limerick. The arrangements for proper representation are very loose. There should be proper representation of each of the local authorities.
No part of the country is similar to the Shannon Estuary. The land bank is on the Kerry side and that is why I propose the formation of another port authority on the Shannon Estuary. The State owns 160 acres of land, Atlantic Resources and Toyota own another 150 acres while Aran Energy holds 200 acres. The deep water berths which will facilitate development at Shannon are all on the Kerry side of the estuary. If there is to be development, the people in the area must be represented properly.
I am concerned about the Minister's reply to the questions about appointments by local authorities. Has the Minister the power to stipulate how many members shall be appointed from local authorities if there are more than three local authorities in a harbour board area? Will he stipulate whether the appointees should come from the local authority area in which the harbour board is situated?
Senator Daly mentioned co-operation with the industrial development agencies. I expect that the port companies will work closely with the industrial development agencies in the development of the port authorities. We are beginning to see an encouraging development of industrial activity close to ports. The best and most recent example is the way in which the development of the port at Bellvue in Waterford has brought industrial development to its hinterland. I expect that will continue in other ports. In the mid-west region there should be co-operation with SFADCo, and the other ports should co-operate with the other industrial development agencies.
It is not intended to create any further companies under this legislation. There is provision whereby the scheduled harbour boards, which are not being established as State companies, can at some stage in the future become State companies if there is a case for it. Senator Dan Kiely's suggestion about a separate port authority for north Kerry is not envisaged and there is no provision made for it in the legislation.
Senator Rory Kiely mentioned local authority appointments to the boards of the port companies. There will be three local authority members and the appointments will be very easy where there is just one local authority. In other cases it will fall neatly into place and most people could tell now which local authorities will make nominations to particular port authorities. In the cases of Galway and Cork, where there are two local authorities — a corporation and a county council — a decision will have to be made. One authority may have all the appointments or one authority could have two appointments while the other authority has one. Limerick is the area in which the number of local authorities exceeds the number of local authority places on the board. Some thought will have to be given to which local authorities will be the nominating bodies for that port authority. I mentioned earlier that perhaps Members might want to express a view on that at some stage.
Do not ask the Senators.
There is no way I could agree with the Minister's reply. He mentioned the Limerick authority, which encompasses five authorities including Tipperary. I am concerned about the three authorities with the main usage, which are Limerick, Clare and Kerry.
There are two authorities in Limerick.
The Senator has taken his pound of flesh. Let me see if I can get a few ounces of flesh for my county. There is no way I could stand over this legislation if I the Minister is insisting that there will only be three local authority appointees on the new port authority in Limerick and that the three might be taken from Limerick——
He is not saying that.
Where should they come from?
I believe the three appointees should come from Kerry.
What about Clare?
This is very serious.
Put down an amendment.
This is quite serious because if the future development of Shannon Estuary is on the Kerry side, which has the deepest water, it is both unfair and unjust that there will be no representation from Kerry. There is no way it can be supported. It is a valid point and I will put down an amendment on Report Stage.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 31 agreed to.
SECTION 32.
Question proposed: "That section 32 stand part of the Bill."
The Minister has powers to remove directors from the company in the event of non-compliance with the section. I presume that power also extends to directors nominated by local authorities. In that situation it would be desirable and reasonable if the Minister would consult with the nominating body before the person is removed. I do not wish to pursue it but I ask the Minister to take it into account and provide for consultation with the nominating body, which may be totally innocent of the incident which led to the removal of the person from the company. If the Minister is removing somebody because of an irregularity, he should consult with the body which appointed that person.
The power of removing a director of a port company here relates to a situation where the Minister is satisfied that the director has contravened section 32 (1). This subsection deals with a situation where a director has not declared his interest in a particular commercial decision that the company is making. In that situation it would not be necessary or desirable for the Minister to consult the nominating body. The Minister would have to satisfy himself or herself whether the director was in breach of section 32 (1) where an interest was not declared or where the director had not absented himself or herself from the part of the meeting where that decision is being made. The Minister would have to satisfy himself or herself as to whether there was a breach of section 32 (1) and then make a decision on that basis. It would not be necessary for the Minister to consult with the nominating body.
For example, if a director who was nominated by one of the three members of Kerry County Council who will be nominated to the Shannon Estuary Port Authority and one of them was in breach of this section, it would not be necessary to go back to Kerry County Council to consult with them as to whether that director should be removed. The Minister would simply act. In any event, I doubt very much whether in a situation like this the nominating county council would know if there was a breach. In a situation like this it might wish not to be involved in a consultative process about it. It is a case where the Minister would have to satisfy himself or herself that there is a breach of the rule. If there is the Minister acts on it.
I compliment the Minister on this subsection. For the first time we see strong words used and I am happy with that. I am sure Senator Daly is also happy with the subsection which covers many of the points we were making on Second Stage and again yesterday in regard to directors who would have a particular interest being appointed and who would have a vested interest. The Minister states the position very strongly in section 32 (1) (c) (i) (ii) (iii) and also in paragraph (iv) of subsection (c) —"shall not vote on a decision relating to the matter". I welcome that part of the Bill. It covers much of the argument I made yesterday in regard to particular directors.
We are always harping on the public representative or the local authority member but this has no relevance to local authority members in comparison to other directors. The local authority member has to declare his interest in any business when he first becomes a local authority member. Oireachtas Members now have to declare everything, and rightly so. The local authority member is covered here more than anybody else. I do not see any danger to the local authority member but I see a big danger to the people who would have an interest elsewhere or a direct interest in something going on in the port.
Can the Minister assure me that the position to be vacated would be filled by the body which originally nominated that person? It is not very clear from this section. It may well be that the local authority member would be removed and replaced by somebody different.
The Bill provides for the number of local authority directors and worker directors. For example, if either a local authority director or a worker director were removed by the Minister as a result of this, they would have to be replaced by a local authority member or a worker director.
The Bill does not say that.
It does not directly say it in this section, but the legislation requires that there be three local authority members on the board and that there be one or two, depending on the size of the labour force, as worker directors.
If the new directors were not nominated by the same bodies as those who were removed, the Minister would be in breach of the legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Section 33 agreed to.
SECTION 34.
Chairman
Amendment No. 12 is in the name of Senator Fitzgerald. Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15, and 16 are related and may be discussed together, by agreement.
I move amendment No. 12:
In page 30, subsection (1), line 24, to delete paragraph (a).
Members will have a great interest in these amendments. The object of the amendments is to make sure that Members of the Seanad are not disqualified from holding a position as board members in any of these boards. I am not saying that the Minister must nominate a person from the Seanad. All these subsections and amendments deal with Members of either House of the Oireachtas or the European Parliament. I am looking for the deletion of the phrase "Where a director of a company is nominated as a Member of Seanad Éireann". To leave that phrase in the Bill would mean that Senators would be disqualified.
I will go back to what Senator Cregan said about local authority members on Second Stage. These people are watchdogs. I hope I am not insulting anyone here in saying that. Let us take Senator Neville who has been a member of Foynes Harbour Board for many years. I do not know how long the Senator has been a Member of the Seanad but I am sure that he and other Senators have made a major contribution to the development of Foynes. I know the arguments the Minister has put forward. I will be brief because I know every Member will want to contribute to this. I want Members of the Seanad not to be disqualified from being a director of a harbour board. I want Senators to be eligible for nomination if the Minister sees fit or if a Member has a dual mandate as a local county councillor as well as a Senator. I know the arguments the Minister put forward in the other House and in the Select Committee, but those arguments relate to TDs. No Member of this House can be a member of the Public Accounts Committee or the committee on State-sponsored bodies.
I was a member of the committee on State-sponsored bodies.
Sorry, Committee of Public Accounts, where these boards would be brought in to answer questions. I cannot see a conflict there. If a Member of the other House who is also a member of the Committee of Public Accounts is on a harbour board, it is possible that he or she could be adjudicating on his own board and that would not work there. I agree with the Minister on that. However, the role of Senators is totally different. Why would we want to deny Senator Neville the right to make a contribution to the Foynes board or any other Senators who are on boards?
The harbour commission in Dingle does not come under this legislation. I have been on Dingle Harbour Commissioners for 22 years and I am the chairman. Every year when the post of chairman comes up every member, of all political persuasions, asks me to take the chair again not because I am a good chairman but because there is a tie between those people and they have a feeling for the work they are doing. If I write a letter as chairman of Dingle Harbour Commissioners to the Department of the Marine I usually have a reply the following day. Unfortunately if the secretary writes a letter, seven or eight months may pass before we get a reply, or we may never get a reply. Departments are afraid of elected Members of the Oireachtas. Oireachtas Members carry the can for many of the country's problems.
I hope that the Minister of State will continue to serve in the Dáil for many years. However, what would happen if he found himself back in the Seanad with an opportunity to serve on one of the boards, which would be vital to furthering his political career? Ports such as Dublin, Waterford, New Ross, Cork, etc., make a major contribution to the economy and Members should be permitted to partake of that contribution. I am not asking that the Minister nominate Senators to serve on the boards. I merely ask that they not be disqualified from doing so. They should be given the opportunity to serve. I know the Minister will agree with me.
I agree with all of the points made by Senator Fitzgerald. Why should a Member of the Seanad be excluded from serving on the boards? What reason can be given for such exclusions? The majority of Senators are members of local authorities and reflect the needs of their areas. As Senator Fitzgerald stated, they can be the main link to the Department when a matter requires urgent attention. In my opinion, it makes no sense that a Member of the Seanad cannot serve on the harbour boards. I hope that the Minister will review this situation because he has empathised with our views to date. I have served with him in another forum and know that if he were in my position he would feel the same way.
The important role of councillors as public representatives on local authorities was discussed earlier. However, the harbour boards are faced with a changing situation because they are now semi-State bodies. As Senator Fitzgerald stated, I contributed to Foynes Harbour Board for a period of ten years. I hope that contribution was a positive one but I think some people might debate that fact.
Deputy Finucane did not think so.
While I was a member the Minister for the Marine had direct control of the harbour board. Now, however, it is a semi-State board with its own commercial responsibilities. There has been a long standing arrangement that Members of the Oireachtas do not serve on the boards of semi-State bodies. Under this amendment, Members would be permitted to serve on such boards.
I was a member of the Joint Committee on Commercial and State-sponsored Bodies during the period when Senator Roche served as its chairman. He proved to be a very good chairman. Yesterday, the House was informed that representatives of the harbours boards can be requested to appear before the Joint Committee on Commercial and State-sponsored Bodies to answer questions. The ensuing report of the committee will be laid before this House. Senator Roche and I have agreed that the contents of such reports should be debated here. As Members of the Oireachtas, we should be completely removed from involvement in reviewing and evaluating the performance of semi-State boards.
Since the Bill was published and during the Second Stage debate I have consistently stated that I have no problem with Senators being removed from the harbour boards. The presence of local councillors will adequately cover local involvement and public representation. I assure Senator Fitzgerald that if a local councillor, as chairman of a harbour board, experienced a problem and approached a Senator for assistance, the Senator involved would move very quickly to provide assistance. I am sure that any Member who was approached for assistance by a councillor with regard to a harbour situation would help in any way possible. It is our duty to do so. Members of the Oireachtas should not serve on the boards of semi-State bodies because we are required to review the reports of the Joint Committee in relation to harbours boards.
Deputy Finucane made a considerable contribution to Foynes Harbour Board during his time as a member. Why should he not be permitted to serve on the board? As a Member of the Oireachtas he should be permitted to do so.
Did he resolve the situation regarding Foynes?
The situation is dramatically changing because the harbour boards will become semi-State bodies under this legislation.
I do not agree with Senator Neville in relation to Senators being excluded from serving on the harbour boards. I have been a member of Limerick Harbour Board for the past 16 years. I am the only member of the board who actually lives on the river. Foynes harbour trustees might also be included in this regard.
Does the Senator live on a riverboat?
Yes. I have been involved with the development of the Shannon Estuary over a number of years. I believe I know more about the estuary and the people who control the lands along its banks than anyone else. This was one of the reasons I gained election to Kerry County Council. I remain a county councillor, but I am excluded from serving on the harbour board by this legislation. Therefore, I am prevented from lending my expertise to that board.
Senator Fitzgerald referred to a situation where the Minister might find himself serving as a Member of the Upper House in the future. If he were invited to become a member of a harbour board he would be excluded from doing so. His experience of maritime law would be lost to that board simply because he was a Member of the Upper House. That situation is completely unjust. People should be permitted to lend their experience to boards of this magnitude. The choice of those to serve as members of such boards becomes limited by the exclusion of certain people. If the boards are to develop and their members are to lend their experience to developing the estuaries, the exclusion of Senators from service limits the Minister's choices.
I am not asking that the Minister appoint Members to the board. The councils involved in selecting the membership of the boards should not be excluded from nominating Senators because many serve on local authorities.
As the Minister and Senator Neville stated, there has been a long standing practice which excludes Members of the Oireachtas being appointed to the boards of commercial or non-commercial State-sponsored bodies. A new type of State-sponsored body or board is now being created which includes local representation. One of the reasons the Bill was drafted as it is was to give local authorities the choice to put forward nominees to serve on these boards. That is a very laudable ambition. There is no reason a Member of either House of the Oireachtas, if nominated by a local authority, should not serve on the board of one of the new State bodies created to replace the harbour boards.
In that context it is interesting to cast our minds back to the early days of the commercial State-sponsored bodies. I have done a little research over the years as I have some interest in the historical establishment of State-sponsored bodies and it is difficult to find in any departmental files or, indeed, in any pronouncement by any Minister at any time in either House of the Oireachtas a cogent argument why Oireachtas Members should be excluded from the boards of any type of State-sponsored body.
There is vast literature, and a huge amount of cynical journalistic literature too, on the composition of boards of State-sponsored bodies. The argument continually put forward is that the principle which governs the appointment to a State board should be capacity, expertise and experience. Those are the elements which should be represented on a board and it strikes me that a person who may serve years on a local authority should not, because they become elected to either House of the Oireachtas, be excluded from these boards if they have the experience and expertise and make a valuable contribution. It is the quality of their contribution, not what other title they hold, which should determine on which boards they serve.
I made this same point when my party was in Government when there was a change made to the boards of a regional technical colleges. I argued — and at that time I had some self-interest in the matter because I was a member of a board of an regional technical college — that the one thing I, as a local representative, enjoyed and to which I believed I made a personal contribution was my membership of the board of a regional technical college. I am not being immodest or flattering myself because, if asked, members of all parties on the board of Carlow regional technical college would suggest I made a contribution for the brief time I was there, and it was never a partisan contribution. I happen to be interested in the regional technical colleges and the idea of spreading their capacity.
I believe the boards of these new bodies should be allowed cast their nets as far as possible on the waters in order to bring in as many people as possible with the qualifications, expertise, experience but, above all else, dedication to those harbours. I am not flattering a colleague when I point to Senator Fitzgerald, who is synonymous with Dingle Harbour. If that harbour was elevated in due course to the point where it became one of the new form of boards, it would be a tragedy for him to be excluded simply because he happens to be a Member of this House. This is a sincere argument and I have made it more often with Ministers from my party than with those of any other. There is a fundamental flaw in the logic which excludes automatically Members of the Oireachtas from any board. With all due respect to Senator Neville, I simply do not believe that the argument that the same Members may on the Oireachtas Joint Committee on State-sponsored Bodies or, in the other House, on the Committee of Public Accounts and that they therefore have a secondary look at the boards through their reports, an argument which provides the Minister with a compelling reason for excluding Members of the Oireachtas from the boards of a State body.
We will not be able to reinvent history with regard to the vast majority of the commercial State-sponsored bodies. The principle and practice which has been established there will undoubtedly continue and Oireachtas Members will not become members of the board of the ESB, etc. But there is no reason whatever that a Member of either House of the Oireachtas, in his or her capacity as a member of a local authority, should not or could not be appointed by a local authority which believed they were the best person to serve on one of these boards. A fundamental error is being made here. The Minister is limiting choice unnecessarily. There is no cogent argument to support that view and I argue strongly that the Minister reconsider it. I realise the Minister would have difficulties because he would be facing precedents which have been set by Ministers who were members of my party. But I believe they were bad precedents and bad decisions, and bad decisions should not beget other bad decisions.
Senator Fitzgerald's good luck today has just run out.
I need a change in the numbers.
I am afraid I will not be able to accept these amendments——
The Minister cannot blame him for trying.
——and I want to explain the reasons for that. On Second Stage a number of Senators commented on the fact that Deputies, Senators and Members of the European Parliament are disqualified from appointment to the boards of the new port companies. Senator Fitzgerald appears to be setting new parameters for the appointment of Senators on the boards of harbour companies. In this regard there is a longstanding convention that Members of both Houses of the Oireachtas and MEPs should not be eligible to be directors of semi-State companies. The rationale behind this prohibition rests in the risk of a conflict of interest arising between a person's functions as a legislator and his or her functions as a member of the board of a State company. For example, it might not be easy for a Member of the Oireachtas to be objective about draft legislation dealing with the semi-State body of which he or she was a director.
Senators, Deputies and MEPs can, of course, continue to serve as harbour commissioners under the 1946 Act because the provision in this Bill relates only to the 12 companies which are being established as semi-State bodies. It is important to recognise that the 12 companies being established under this legislation are semi-State companies with the same status as companies like An Post, CIE or Aer Rianta. Nobody, apart, perhaps, from Senator Roche, would suggest that Members of the Oireachtas should be directors of any of these State companies. If it is inappropriate for a Deputy or Senator to be a member of the board of directors of Aer Rianta, which is responsible for the management of Dublin Airport or Shannon Airport, then it is inappropriate for a Deputy or Senator to be a member of the board of directors of the Dublin port company or the Shannon Estuary port company, which is responsible for the corresponding seaports in the same areas.
Senator Fitzgerald's amendments seek to establish a special status only for members of the Seanad. First, I draw his attention to amendments Nos. 14 and 15, which, if passed, would deny employees of harbour companies the right to secondment from their employment if elected or appointed to the Seanad. Perhaps Senator Fitzgerald did not intend this to be the result of these amendments, but that would be their effect.
Amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 16 seek to give a Member of the Seanad the right to be appointed as a director of a port company. Why should the Seanad be different from the Dáil in this respect? Both Houses deal with legislation and will exercise a supervisory role in relation to these semi-State companies through the Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies. A Senator is responsible, in his or her capacity as a legislator, for legislation which comes through this House. For example, a Finance Bill might deal with the tax regime which should apply to the port companies of which, if Senator Fitzgerald's amendment where agreed, a Senator might be a director. The House might deal with harbours' legislation at some future point which would directly impact on the company of which the Senator would be a director. We have had, for example, in the course of the debate on this legislation some sensitive issues dealing with the regulation of affairs between competing ports — such as Foynes and Limerick or New Ross and Waterford — and it would be quite inappropriate if legislative decisions on these matters were being debated and voted upon by a Senator who was also, simultaneously, a member of the board of directors of one of the companies concerned.
We should also bear in mind that the port companies being established will be in competition not only with each other but, in some cases, with private interests. Again I am sure many Members would find it uncomfortable to be in a position where they were legislating on matters which directly affected the company of which they were a director.
A fundamental change is being made by this legislation from the local authority type body which the harbour commissioners were under the 1946 Act, where their position was in some way analogous to local authorities or bodies of that kind. They are now becoming commercial companies with boards of directors which will be governed by the Companies Acts. Specific provisions are being made in the legislation governing the directors of these companies and requiring them, for example, to declare interests and to separate their private interest from their function as directors of the company. It would be inappropriate if a director of one of these companies was at the same time a Member of either House of the Oireachtas, which is making the law governing those companies and which has a supervisory function over the conduct of the affairs of those companies.
I was going to contribute before the Minister spoke but I decided to wait to hear what he had to say. The Minister made two points I would have mentioned if I had spoken before him. He has shown an admirable degree of flexibility with the arguments from this side of the House so we have a responsibility to reciprocate when he puts forward reasonable arguments.
The first point is to do with the potential conflict that would arise in terms of legislation going through the House. While I am not suggesting that anybody would misuse their position — I know the quality of the representation on the boards has been high — when legislation impinges directly on the activity where one would be a director, one's attitude to the legislation would inevitably be coloured. However, that is not to say we leave our personal prejudices behind when we come here — we do not in many circumstances — but the relationship is of such a close nature that one would be open to the accusation of having brought a narrow sectoral view to bear on legislation. The Minister has certainly convinced me on that argument.
I also support the Minister's argument on the semi-State boards. I would love to be on the board of Bord na Móna but this would not be good for either Bord na Móna or myself. However, since a large part of my constituency is employed by Bord na Móna, there is potential there, however one might try to avoid it, for a conflict of interest.
One cannot treat the two Houses differently. A rule either applies to both Houses or to neither. If the Seanad stands equal to the Dáil, as it does under the Constitution, its Members have to be treated equally otherwise the status of the House is reduced, which is another argument as to why the Minister's reply has been reasonable. On balance, I would tend to support him. However, I am not saying I will support him in the event of a division.
I want to substantiate the many points made by Senator Dardis and the Minister. While I agree wholeheartedly with the idea of having public representatives as watchdogs on boards, what we are talking about here are directorships. A member and a director of an authority are two different positions.
There is no difference in the Constitution between Seanad and Dáil Members in that both are Members of the Oireachtas. As an Oireachtas Member, I do not want to be a director of any semi-State body and no Member should want to be either. We are the national watchdogs and are elected for this purpose. I tell my local representative colleagues when they sit on certain boards to inform me if they come across any matter of substance that is relevant to the national situation.
Senator Fitzgerald means well with these amendments but they give the impression that a Senator is not a full Member of the Oireachtas. A Senator is a full Member of the Oireachtas.
There is a difference of £17,000 between a Dáil and Seanad Member.
We are not talking about money. However, the real question is whether one is committed to being a Member of the Oireachtas. We are elected by the people to do work at national level.
I would not like any Member from either House to be a director of a semi-State body. The Minister has already spoken about this in regard to the Finance Bill. Points could be made there that may be relevant to a board. Question marks could put over section 30. Senator Fitzgerald is especially interested in Dingle. There is no danger of him losing his chairmanship of that board because of the excellent job he has done.
I hope I will not.
Dingle has done well because of the Senator. However, at the same time we should be subtle.
We have undermined each other for far too long by saying that we should be concentrating on local matters. If we did this we would have no time to do anything nationally and then others could dictate policy. We would not be able to attend Oireachtas committees because we would be too involved in local hospital boards and city councils. While these are undoubtedly important — I am very involved in the Southern Health Board — I am also conscious that I have a responsibility as a national watchdog. Under no circumstances do I want put myself in a position where I cannot speak about certain semi-State or new boards set up by this Minister because of serving as a director on one of their boards.
I ask the Opposition to be subtle and to let the Minister solve this in a way that will allow all Members to regain the standing we deserve.
I may have been the first Member to have been disqualified from a board. In 1981, the leader of the Fianna Fáil group, Senator Wright, and I were directors of Bord Iascaigh Mhara, and that was when the provision that Members of the Seanad would be disqualified was introduced. I took it badly at the time. In the years we served on Bord Iascaigh Mhara, we were not biased in any shape or form and we served it to the best of our ability. It was wrong to do this in view of my interest in fishing and the fishing industry and what I could contribute to the board. I had been a director of that board for three years before that provision was introduced. That was the first time I was elected and Senator Wright was nominated to the Seanad.
I cannot understand why, if I am trusted to be a Member of the Seanad, I am not to be trusted to be a member of a board. I do not demean the other House, but I cannot agree with the Minister's argument not to allow Members of the Lower House be members of boards because they could be members of an Oireachtas committee which would call the chief executives or whoever from the harbour boards to answer questions. Can Senators be members of the Committee of Public Accounts, the main committee which calls for the attendance of members of these boards?
What about the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Commercial State-sponsored Bodies?
We are different from the other House. For example, if we win an amendment on this Bill, it returns to the other House which will overturn it and that is the end of the matter. If we had this power we could delay the Bill for the next three years, but we do not, nor do we have the same powers as Members of the other House.
As a member of the Agricultural Panel, I represent fishermen. My first nomination to the House was from the Central Fisheries Board and I have been nominated by it on several occasions to stand for the Seanad. Is Senator Neville suggesting that this board will no longer have power to nominate me? The Seanad is a different type of legislative body. It was set up to do a different job, to be a watchdog. We are watchdogs of the legislation coming through the other House, although we cannot stop it.
The Minister's approach to the other amendments has been favourable but because Senator Wright and I were disqualified from a board, we must press this amendment.
I call on Senator Roche. We have discussed this for some time so I would ask Senators to be brief.
Constitutionally, Seanad Éireann was created as a vocationalist body, and it represents in a vocational sense. It is not a representative House in the same sense as the other House. It is fundamentally at odds with the concept that one tries to put people on boards who know something about them, that one then passes a law that such people cannot be put on them.
The argument regarding conflict of interest was put forward for years in Departments against the idea of worker directors in State-sponsored bodies. This argument does not hold water. I do not believe the worker directors on State-sponsored bodies have been anything other than a good and a positive force, and I would not like this argument again extended to see them being withdrawn from the boards of State bodies. The conflict of interest does not apply here, indeed I would go further than other Senators in that I do not want to penalise Members of the other House, but they can speak for themselves.
The point was made that there is a difference between being a director and being a member of a local authority. There is not a great difference because the members of the local authorities should, in my view, look on themselves as directors charged with the task of ensuring efficiency and effectiveness.
I do not accept that the argument regarding a conflict of interest holds water. For example, I am a member of a vocational education committee, I am a Member of this House and I was a Member of the other House. I had no difficulties airing my views on vocational education committees. In addition, I am a member of a health board, which has been an educative process, and I do not have any problem arguing the case here for or against the Eastern Health Board.
The arguments here have not been well thought through. I thank the Minister for his exposition because he came as close as possible to putting on the record of either House, at any time, the cogent arguments against boards of directors. However, I do not accept the validity of the arguments. I have a fundamental problem with them, especially with regard to this House, which was put in place to be semi vocationalist. I do not believe the arguments can stand.
I speak reluctantly because I have reservations about the amendment. Members of the Oireachtas, with all the time they have to spend in Dublin and so on, may not have the time to devote their energies to State boards. There are other elected members of local authorities equally qualified in this regard. I may not be gifted with the qualities or the abilities that God bestowed on Senator Roche, but there is a limit to what can be done. If the amendment is pressed I will vote for it, but I will do so with my feet, not my heart, because I believe that on this issue we are greedy.
I am disappointed that Senator Fitzgerald has indicated that he intends to press this issue. We were having a constructive debate on the Bill and on the amendments and we were, on both sides, taking issues on their merits and listening to what each other had to say.
I do not see why the Senator should visit on me or on the Bill a grudge he has about being removed from the board of BIM 14 years ago. I am sure there are other ways he could have exercised his spleen on this. I ask Senator Fitzgerald to reconsider the matter, taking account of opinions that have been expressed on his own side of the House.
There is not a case for making a distinction between the Dáil and the Seanad. Senator Dardis put it accurately when he said that one either has or does not have Members of the Oireachtas as directors of companies.
The Progressive Democrats wanted to abolish the Seanad.
I am not going to rehash the arguments as we have all made our case. However, I appeal to Senator Fitzgerald not to introduce a less than constructive note to what has otherwise been a constructive debate today.
Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand".
The Committee divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 20.
Tá
- Belton, Louis J.
- Cashin, Bill.
- Cosgrave, Liam.
- Cotter, Bill.
- Gallagher, Ann.
- Howard, Michael.
- Kelly, Mary.
- Lee, Joe.
- Maloney, Seán.
- Manning, Maurice.
- Neville, Daniel.
- Norris, David.
- Cregan, Denis (Dino).
- D'Arcy, Michael.
- Enright, Thomas W.
- Farrelly, John V.
- O'Sullivan, Jan.
- Quinn, Feargal.
- Reynolds, Gerry.
- Sherlock, Joe.
- Taylor-Quinn, Madeleine.
- Townsend, Jim.
- Wall, Jack.
Níl
- Byrne, Seán.
- Daly, Brendan.
- Fahey, Frank.
- Farrell, Willie.
- Finneran, Michael.
- Fitzgerald, Tom.
- Kelleher, Billy.
- Kiely, Dan.
- Kiely, Rory.
- Lanigan, Mick.
- Lydon, Don.
- McGennis, Marian.
- McGowan, Paddy.
- Mooney, Paschal.
- Mullooly, Brian.
- O'Brien, Francis.
- O'Kennedy, Michael.
- Ormonde, Ann.
- Roche, Dick.
- Wright, G.V.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Cosgrave and Wall; Níl, Senators Fitzgerald and Ormonde.
Question declared carried.
Amendment declared lost.
Progress reported; Committee to sit again.